earticle

영어

Article 755, Clause 1 stipulates, “In the case that no responsibility lies with the incapable person, those with the legal obligation to supervise the incapable person bears the responsibility to pay damages for any losses incurred by a third party due to the acts of the incapable person.” However, the clause does not give clear stipulations concerning the legal supervisor. As such, the following review is needed. First, if there is no possibility of the person with mental illness who had been ordered by court to have a legal adult guardian to have had the logical judgment abilities at the time of the act, the issue of who is the person with the legal supervisory obligations rises. Some scholars argue that the protection of patients of mental illness needs to be included into the scope of physical protection under Article 947 of the Civil Code but this interpretation places excessive burden on the adult legal guardian and has not taken sufficient account the fact that to become immune from Article 755, Clause 1 of the Civil Code, the legal guardian may imprison or oppress the person with mental ilness. They can also go against the obligations to considering welfare and obligations to respect opinions under Article 947 of the Civil Code and Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Physically Challenged. As such, since it cannot be seen that the adult legal guardian bears the obligation of broad physical protection that includes practical protection, he cannot become the person with the obligation for legal supervision under Article 755, Clause 1. Second, there is a need to review whether the person with the legal obligation under Article 39 of the law on the promotion of mental health and support for mental health welfare services (heretofore referred to as the Act on Mental Health and Welfare) can become the person with the legal obligation of supervision under Article 755, Clause 1 of the Civil Code. Article 39 of the Act on Mental Health and Welfare states that the legal guardian or the person with the obligation of care-taking becomes the person with the legal obligation to protect the patient with mental illness. Article 40, Clause 3 of the same law specifically defines the obligation of the person with the obligation of protection. The obligation under Article 40, Clause 3 should be interpreted as the ‘obligation to supervise in order to prevent injury or harm to self or others’. As such, if a patient of mental illness who does not have the logical judging ability to determine the consequences of his act at the time of the act had been ordered to receive legal adult guardianship, the legal adult guardian becomes the person with the legal obligation of supervision as per Article 755, Clause 1 of the Civil Code. If the patient of mental illness had not been ordered to receive legal guardianship, the person with the obligation of care-taking shall become the person with the obligation of legal supervision. Meanwhile, given the intention of the Act on Mental Health and Welfare, the policy of guardianship should be maintained but the ‘obligation to prevent harm or injury to self or others’ as per Article 40, Clause 3 of the same law should be deleted. Third, in the case of patients with mental illness who had not been ordered to receive legal adult guardianship or who are not subject to the Act on Mental Health and Welfare, there is the issue of who should be seen as the person with the legal obligation of supervision as per Article 755 of the Civil Code. Before adopting the legal adult guardianship, the Supreme Court had ordered that those who are not to full capacity of their body or mind and who have not been ruled as unable to manage their own property shall have first the wife and then the parent as the person with the obligation to supervise them. But there is no legal rationale to grant the obligation of supervision to the wife or parent, nor does this apply to the practical supervisior under Article 755 of the Civil Code. To compile the discourse of the above based on the assumption of the deletion of ‘the obligation to prevent injury or harm to self or others’ as per Article 40, Clause 3 of the Act on Mental Health and Welfare, in the case that a patient with mental illness who is not at full capacity in body or mind incurs loss to a third party, the victim does not have a defendant against whom he may file charges. As such, for illegal acts by patients of mental illness who are not at full capacity in body or mind, a new policy must be reinstated regarding the responsibility of the supervisor under Article 755. It is advisable to take cues from the laws of France and the U.S.A. where when losses are incurred on the part of third parties due to the act of patients with a mental illness, regardless of the ability for responsibility they are required to bear the regular responsibility for illegal acts under Article 750 of the Civil Code.

한국어

민법 제755조 제1항은 “무능력자에게 책임이 없는 경우에는 이를 감독할 법정의무 있는 자가 그 무능력자의 제3자에게 가한 손해를 배상할 책임이 있다.”라고 규정하고 있을 뿐 법정감독의무자에 대하여 명확한 규정을 두지 않았다. 이에 아래와 같은 검토가 필요하다. 첫째, 성년후견개시의 심판을 받은 정신질환자가 가해행위 당시 책임을 변식할 지능이 없는 경우, 법정감독의무자를 누구로 볼 것인지가 문제된다. 일부 학자들은 민법 제947조의 신상보호의 범위에 정신질환자를 감호해야 할 의무까지 포함된다고 주장하나 이러한 해석은 성년후견인에게 과중한 부담을 주게 되어 민법 제755조 제1항의 면책을 위해 정신질환자를 감금, 억압할 수 있음을 간과한 것이다. 또한 민법 제947조의 복리배려의무 및 의사존중의무 및 UN 장애인권리협약 제12조에도 반할 수 있다. 따라서 성년후견인은 사실상의 감호행위까지 포함하는 넓은 의미의 신상보호의무를 진다고 볼 수 없으므로 제755조 제1항의 법정감독의무자도 될 수 없다. 둘째, 정신건강증진 및 정신질환자 복지서비스지원에 관한 법률 제39조(이하 정신건강복지법으로 통일한다)의 보호의무자가 민법 제755조 제1항의 법정감독의무자가 될 수 있는지 검토가 필요하다. 정신건강복지법 제39조는 후견인 또는 부양의무자가 정신질환자의 보호의무자가 된다고 규정하며, 동법 제40조 제3항은 보호의무자의 의무에 대해 구체적으로 규정하고 있는데, 제40조 제3항의 의무는 ‘자상타해방지감독의무’로 해석하는 것이 타당하다. 따라서 행위 당시 책임을 변식할 지능이 없는 정신질환자가 성년후견개시의 심판을 받았다면 성년후견인이 민법 제755조 제1항의 법정감독의무자가 되며, 성년후견개시의 심판을 받지 않았다면 부양의무자가 민법 제755조 제1항의 법정감독의무자가 될 것이다. 한편 정신건강복지법의 입법취지를 고려할 때 보호자제도는 그대로 유지하되 동법 제40조 제3항의 ‘자상타해방지감독의무’는 삭제됨이 타당하다. 셋째, 성년후견개시의 심판을 받지 않았거나, 정신건강복지법의 적용을 받지 않는 정신질환자의 경우, 민법 제755조의 감독의무자를 누구로 볼 것인지 문제된다. 성년후견제도 도입 전 대법원은 금치산선고를 받지 않은 심신상실자의 경우, 처･부모의 순위로 감독의무자가 된다고 판시한 바가 있으나, 처･부모･성인인 자녀에게 감독의무를 부과할 법적 근거가 없으며 이들은 민법 제755조에 의한 사실상의 감독자에도 해당하지 않는다. 정신건강복지법 제40조 제3항의 ‘자상타해방지감독의무’의 삭제를 전제로 상기 논의를 종합해 보면, 심신상실상태 있는 정신질환자가 가해행위로 인해 타인에게 손해를 발생케 한 경우, 피해자는 손해에 대한 배상을 청구할 수 있는 주체가 없다는 문제점이 발생한다. 따라서 심신상실 상태에 있는 정신질환자의 불법행위의 경우, 민법 제755조 감독자책임에 관한 새로운 제도설계가 필요하다. 생각건대 프랑스, 미국의 입법례를 차용하여 심신상실상태에 있는 정신질환자가 가해행위로 인해 타인에게 손해를 발생케 한 경우, 책임능력의 여부와 무관하게 민법 제750조에 의한 일반불법행위책임을 지도록 개정됨이 타당하다.